As I said before it's high time that ALL rounds were scored on some sort of points system, so that the decision is not just left to the two presenters.
It was clear some weeks back that Shelina was the "chosen one" this year.
It is stupidity to have all these Michelin Star chefs mentoring and working with the contestants, to then not have them involved in the decision making process.
The way it currently stands, they'd be cheaper and far more sensible to do away with 14 episodes, foreign travel and expenses and just have all the contestants cook one meal.
Whichever one Wallace and Gromit like the best is the winner.
I can see why there is some confusion and a great deal of discussion about not just how the final decision is made, but also at times eliminations along the way. The plot hole in MC is that right from the start when it 'came back' as 'Masterchef Goes Large' no one explained to the audience at home the criteria for the marking and elimination process. We've worked it out along the way, and after watching a few series, that it does seem to be mostly down to the last meal cooked (I would guess some people realised that when Digger Dean didn't win right from the off...!) but no one ever said that (to us, the TV audience) and so many were either completely bewildered, or completely outraged, when Peter won over Dean (using that as an example only, you understand!).
They should have been - and in the future maybe still should be - much more transparent with the judging criteria. We don't see it and we don't hear it (much). We might, occasionally, get some reference to a previous round, but mostly we don't. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it just needs to be explained to the audience how the decisions are made, not just left up to us to try and work it out.
Not sure how, or even if, marking throughout the rounds could work, but I agree that if they are going to cook for critics and other chefs then we should expect those people to have a say in the decision going forwards.
Some haven't minded that it's down to the final meal alone, but others do. The point is no one ever told us at the start. It (the judging criteria) should be more clearly defined. Maybe then accusations of 'chosen ones' could be avoided too.
I'm not sure if I've made any kind of sense here, but I know what I'm trying to say lol!
I understand why they chose her, but at the same time I was a little bit disappointed.
She has indeed been the most consistent but when you think who of these cooks could be a future Michelinstar cook, my guess is it wouldn't be Shelina but possibly Andrew or Tom and of those I'd root for Tom.
He had the most creative ideas but his execution of those dishes varied too much between a cock up and brilliance.
I think that at this point they could not have chosen anyone other than Shelina.
Apart from that both were smitten with her....
Again I think some of the blame for the confusion over what makes a champion lies with the production itself. MC isn't like the X factor (which I don't watch) or Mastermind or whatever. There is no 'prize', and therefore there is no goal towards which the contestants need to show themselves to be working. If there was then maybe there would be a case for saying that the one who showed the most potential as a 'high-end/Michelin-starred' chef didn't win, but it's never been explicitly stated that the winner has to fit that description (we might assume it, but it's never - I don't think - been stated) and there has never been a 'prize' as such, and certainly not the prize of winning a job in a Michelin-starred kitchen. If there were then of course we could argue that maybe Tom should have won last night because what he cooked looked the part, but Shelina won because that ISN'T the prize, it ISN'T the criteria used for making the ultimate decision. You can say she only cooks high-end 'street food', but where does it say that the winner can't do that? It doesn't! So, again, maybe some sort of clarification should have happened from those who devised the format, and again we the viewers have been left to make subjective judgements on what on earth constitutes a MC champion.
She was at her best within her comfort zone - and that always seem to involve a lot of mango
A cynic might say that she studied the form on this...
John likes his spicy street food
Greg likes mango
Keep doing that over and over and watch the praise come in.
Now clearly Shelina can cook - I just don't think she has the potential that Tom does.
And for me, the show should be about potential for future brilliance
Which is the point I was trying to make above. To YOU it should be, but that's never been stated by anyone in charge of production that it is ACTUALLY about that. It's all too subjective. To you it's about who shows potential for future brilliance, but to others it's just about someone who can cook edible food which looks good and tastes good in the very final programme of the series. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but then neither is any other opinion when we've got no explicit guidance about what qualities are being judged as appropriate for a winning MC chef. We can assume that, due to the emphasis put on Michelin-starred chefs and food toward the end, that it should be given to the one who cooks in the same way and to the same potential. In which case Tom probably should have won. But if it's simply down to who cooks the most fault-free meal on the night then Shelina was a worthy winner.
Some are being very harsh here. She consistently delivered good looking food on time throughout the competition. People on here have no right to argue the final decision without tasting her food. All we can go on is how it looked and how often she delivered on time. She deserved it for me.
Tom had lots of imagination but he was inconsistent and still failed to deliver some dishes on time. He did well but for me was not consistent. Maybe he should have played it a bit safer? Mind you he is fairly good looking too, maybe some people on here took that into account............
And all we can go on is the blurred criteria which goes into what the underlying premise is for judging a champion in amateur MC!
FWIW I loved the look of Shelina's food. I'd have eaten all of it - even the whole soft-shell crab! But did it always look like Tom's final plates of food? No. But did anyone say it absolutely had to? No again - and that's where the difficulty lies. IMO of course, lol!
Shelina reminded me of Michelle Peters from yonks ago, her food was brilliant but didn't win. She now lives in Canada, here is a link to her food blog if anyone is interested:
Yes it was and he said so too, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good bitchy comment
I haven't posted much here but have enjoyed reading all the posts. Thank you all for helping my Master Chef experience last longer than just watching it Hugs all round.
it does seem to be mostly down to the last meal cooked (I would guess some people realised that when Digger Dean didn't win right from the off...!) but no one ever said that (to us, the TV audience) and so many were either completely bewildered, or completely outraged, when Peter won over Dean (using that as an example only, you understand!).
Or both
(apologies for snipping your great post, by the way)
I think the expectations of winning Masterchef have shifted - in the days when Digger Dean wuz robbed there was a prize - it was a bursary and placement in a pro-kitchen - a bit like a budget Roux Scholarship, although Peter didn't take the option up I think because the bursary didn't even cover living expenses. I also think it was the last year an offical prize was offered. Winning Masterchef was seen as just the start of the learning process - now it seems to be considered a fast-track to opening your own restaurant - something that even trained chefs with years of kitchen experience take their time over.
As a battle scarred veteran of 2006 Digger Dean Wuz Robbed-ness I can't look at either Tom or Andrew and say either of them wuz robbed because I don't really think they were.
Shelina was excellent through the tasks, impressed the mentor chefs and the critics and then held her nerve and put up 3 solid courses. If she had wobbled on a course like Tom and Andrew both did, it may have been a closer call but when there is nothing to mark down, then there's nothing to mark down.
I think Shelina did deserve to win so I have no complaints about that, but at the same time I wish it hadn't been quite so obvious for so long that she was going to win because it made the final a little bit boring for me.
I'm quite sad it's all over. I'll miss my fix, both of the show itself and of John.
If anyone served me hay infused anything ... I'd be quite annoyed, neigh positively miffed!
Was that "Neigh" rather than "nay" deliberate. I had a right chuckle at it as I thought of a horse enjoying some hay infused hay!
I think Shelina was always going to win given the way the last few episodes have gone but I really think Tom was unlucky if it was just based on last nights stuff.
It was almost like they had to say there was something wrong with his dishes to justify Shelina winning. "slightly undercooked rhubarb" just seemed like an excuse to not give 100% marks because he'd knocked his dishes out of the park.
I think they looked better than Shelina's too.
I don't think he'd really have been a worthy winner all the same.
I understand why they chose her, but at the same time I was a little bit disappointed.
She has indeed been the most consistent but when you think who of these cooks could be a future Michelinstar cook, my guess is it wouldn't be Shelina but possibly Andrew or Tom and of those I'd root for Tom.
He had the most creative ideas but his execution of those dishes varied too much between a cock up and brilliance.
I think that at this point they could not have chosen anyone other than Shelina.
Apart from that both were smitten with her....
I agree.
I think it's telling that we never heard the criticism they levelled at Shelina in the Radio Times - that she needs to diversify more - on screen. Her winning was a done deal and she was indeed consistent - but, in terms of raw talent, give me Tom any day.
I would hope for all three finalists, however, that they can make the career change they would like.
Yeah, my back is playing up so stuck in bed, and watching masterchef on the iplayer lol.
Spending the day in bed with Greg and John won't help your back..:D
Hope you feel better soon!
I have about 3 episodes to watch by Monday when my Sky+box is replaced. I quite like watching when you know who the winner is, you can keep an eye on them then.
Spending the day in bed with Greg and John won't help your back..:D
Hope you feel better soon!
I have about 3 episodes to watch by Monday when my Sky+box is replaced. I quite like watching when you know who the winner is, you can keep an eye on them then.
Or both
(apologies for snipping your great post, by the way)
I think the expectations of winning Masterchef have shifted - in the days when Digger Dean wuz robbed there was a prize - it was a bursary and placement in a pro-kitchen - a bit like a budget Roux Scholarship, although Peter didn't take the option up I think because the bursary didn't even cover living expenses. I also think it was the last year an offical prize was offered. Winning Masterchef was seen as just the start of the learning process - now it seems to be considered a fast-track to opening your own restaurant - something that even trained chefs with years of kitchen experience take their time over.
As a battle scarred veteran of 2006 Digger Dean Wuz Robbed-ness I can't look at either Tom or Andrew and say either of them wuz robbed because I don't really think they were.
Shelina was excellent through the tasks, impressed the mentor chefs and the critics and then held her nerve and put up 3 solid courses. If she had wobbled on a course like Tom and Andrew both did, it may have been a closer call but when there is nothing to mark down, then there's nothing to mark down.
What an excellent, cool logical post. Completely agree
Spending the day in bed with Greg and John won't help your back..:D
Hope you feel better soon!
I have about 3 episodes to watch by Monday when my Sky+box is replaced. I quite like watching when you know who the winner is, you can keep an eye on them then.
Unless I'm severely missing the point of the programme and the concept of what constitutes a contest in the first place, surely the person who consistently produces the best food, meeting the task criteria, and within the time given is deservedly the winner.
I fail totally to understand all the criticism of the decision as, even given the way the programme is edited, Shelina consistently delivered correctly cooked food on time and unaided. In the three programmes covering the final both Tom and Andrew failed to do the same.
What more does she need to do for goodness sake?
Hoorah for common sense. Selina has been taking a lot of unjustified flack for simply being a nice calm, normal person who cooks well. She didn't irritate like Jackie, gurn like Aki, over-complicate like Andrew, run out of time like Tom, underperform like Eamon and Jay, and so on. She ran the course most successfully and that's why she won.
Comments
You should probably calm down.
Andrew went to the same school as me!
And Shelina did win, she was the most consistent so congrats to her.
I can see why there is some confusion and a great deal of discussion about not just how the final decision is made, but also at times eliminations along the way. The plot hole in MC is that right from the start when it 'came back' as 'Masterchef Goes Large' no one explained to the audience at home the criteria for the marking and elimination process. We've worked it out along the way, and after watching a few series, that it does seem to be mostly down to the last meal cooked (I would guess some people realised that when Digger Dean didn't win right from the off...!) but no one ever said that (to us, the TV audience) and so many were either completely bewildered, or completely outraged, when Peter won over Dean (using that as an example only, you understand!).
They should have been - and in the future maybe still should be - much more transparent with the judging criteria. We don't see it and we don't hear it (much). We might, occasionally, get some reference to a previous round, but mostly we don't. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it just needs to be explained to the audience how the decisions are made, not just left up to us to try and work it out.
Not sure how, or even if, marking throughout the rounds could work, but I agree that if they are going to cook for critics and other chefs then we should expect those people to have a say in the decision going forwards.
Some haven't minded that it's down to the final meal alone, but others do. The point is no one ever told us at the start. It (the judging criteria) should be more clearly defined. Maybe then accusations of 'chosen ones' could be avoided too.
I'm not sure if I've made any kind of sense here, but I know what I'm trying to say lol!
Again I think some of the blame for the confusion over what makes a champion lies with the production itself. MC isn't like the X factor (which I don't watch) or Mastermind or whatever. There is no 'prize', and therefore there is no goal towards which the contestants need to show themselves to be working. If there was then maybe there would be a case for saying that the one who showed the most potential as a 'high-end/Michelin-starred' chef didn't win, but it's never been explicitly stated that the winner has to fit that description (we might assume it, but it's never - I don't think - been stated) and there has never been a 'prize' as such, and certainly not the prize of winning a job in a Michelin-starred kitchen. If there were then of course we could argue that maybe Tom should have won last night because what he cooked looked the part, but Shelina won because that ISN'T the prize, it ISN'T the criteria used for making the ultimate decision. You can say she only cooks high-end 'street food', but where does it say that the winner can't do that? It doesn't! So, again, maybe some sort of clarification should have happened from those who devised the format, and again we the viewers have been left to make subjective judgements on what on earth constitutes a MC champion.
Which is the point I was trying to make above. To YOU it should be, but that's never been stated by anyone in charge of production that it is ACTUALLY about that. It's all too subjective. To you it's about who shows potential for future brilliance, but to others it's just about someone who can cook edible food which looks good and tastes good in the very final programme of the series. I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, but then neither is any other opinion when we've got no explicit guidance about what qualities are being judged as appropriate for a winning MC chef. We can assume that, due to the emphasis put on Michelin-starred chefs and food toward the end, that it should be given to the one who cooks in the same way and to the same potential. In which case Tom probably should have won. But if it's simply down to who cooks the most fault-free meal on the night then Shelina was a worthy winner.
And all we can go on is the blurred criteria which goes into what the underlying premise is for judging a champion in amateur MC!
FWIW I loved the look of Shelina's food. I'd have eaten all of it - even the whole soft-shell crab! But did it always look like Tom's final plates of food? No. But did anyone say it absolutely had to? No again - and that's where the difficulty lies. IMO of course, lol!
http://foodfootballandababy.blogspot.com/
Tom was wrong saying that nobody remembers the runners-up
So accusing members of throwing tantrums and missing teddy bears is not personal.
Yeah right! :rolleyes:
Yes it was and he said so too, but don't let the truth get in the way of a good bitchy comment
I haven't posted much here but have enjoyed reading all the posts. Thank you all for helping my Master Chef experience last longer than just watching it
Was he as sweet natured as he came across on TV?
Or both
(apologies for snipping your great post, by the way)
I think the expectations of winning Masterchef have shifted - in the days when Digger Dean wuz robbed there was a prize - it was a bursary and placement in a pro-kitchen - a bit like a budget Roux Scholarship, although Peter didn't take the option up I think because the bursary didn't even cover living expenses. I also think it was the last year an offical prize was offered. Winning Masterchef was seen as just the start of the learning process - now it seems to be considered a fast-track to opening your own restaurant - something that even trained chefs with years of kitchen experience take their time over.
As a battle scarred veteran of 2006 Digger Dean Wuz Robbed-ness I can't look at either Tom or Andrew and say either of them wuz robbed because I don't really think they were.
Shelina was excellent through the tasks, impressed the mentor chefs and the critics and then held her nerve and put up 3 solid courses. If she had wobbled on a course like Tom and Andrew both did, it may have been a closer call but when there is nothing to mark down, then there's nothing to mark down.
I'm quite sad it's all over. I'll miss my fix, both of the show itself and of John.
Was that "Neigh" rather than "nay" deliberate. I had a right chuckle at it as I thought of a horse enjoying some hay infused hay!
I think Shelina was always going to win given the way the last few episodes have gone but I really think Tom was unlucky if it was just based on last nights stuff.
It was almost like they had to say there was something wrong with his dishes to justify Shelina winning. "slightly undercooked rhubarb" just seemed like an excuse to not give 100% marks because he'd knocked his dishes out of the park.
I think they looked better than Shelina's too.
I don't think he'd really have been a worthy winner all the same.
I agree.
I think it's telling that we never heard the criticism they levelled at Shelina in the Radio Times - that she needs to diversify more - on screen. Her winning was a done deal and she was indeed consistent - but, in terms of raw talent, give me Tom any day.
I would hope for all three finalists, however, that they can make the career change they would like.
Are you having a Masterchef day?
Yeah, my back is playing up so stuck in bed, and watching masterchef on the iplayer lol.
Spending the day in bed with Greg and John won't help your back..:D
Hope you feel better soon!
I have about 3 episodes to watch by Monday when my Sky+box is replaced. I quite like watching when you know who the winner is, you can keep an eye on them then.
Haha I know!
I'll be turning it off soon, for cdwm etc.
This one?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzrC72Xv6pE
What an excellent, cool logical post. Completely agree
It was Regina Spektor ('Us'). She's aces.
Not so sure! I adore John
Hoorah for common sense. Selina has been taking a lot of unjustified flack for simply being a nice calm, normal person who cooks well. She didn't irritate like Jackie, gurn like Aki, over-complicate like Andrew, run out of time like Tom, underperform like Eamon and Jay, and so on. She ran the course most successfully and that's why she won.
It was in response to your extremely aggressive reply. Asking what rattled my cage and telling me to "stay the hell away" from the forum.
Just calm down. We're all friends here.